http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: MR. A.P. SAREEN & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       13/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Heard learned counsel on both sides.      Leave granted.      This appeal  arises from  the judgment  of the Division Bench of  Allahabad High  Court, made on December 9, 1996 in CMWP No.  23997 of 1996. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the ’Act’) was published on  July  27,  1995  and  the  Government  had  in exercise of  the  power  under  Section  17(1)  of  the  Act dispensed with  inquiry under  Section 5-A  of the Act. Shri P.P. Rao,  learned counsel for the appellant, contended that since  declaration   was  not   published  immediately,  the exercise of  power under  Section 17 (1) dispensing with the inquiry under  Section 5-A,  is bad  in law  as it indicates that there  was no  real urgency. The view of the High Court that possession  of land  is deemed to have been taken under Section 17(4)  is not correct on the facts of this case. The ratio of the judgment of this Court in Ghaziabad Development Authority us.  Jan Kalyan  Samiti Sheopuri, Ghaziabad & Anr. [(1996) 2  SCC 365]  has no application to the facts of this case though  we are in agreement with the learned counsel in this  behalf,   we  do  not  find  substance  in  the  other contentions. As  regards  the  delay  in  issuing  the  said declaration we find that the authorities appear to have mis- construed the  steps to  be taken under the Act. It is well- settled legal  position that  urgency can  be said  to exist when land  proposed to  be acquired  is needed  for  planned development of the city/town etc. In Shri Mohan Singh & Ors. etc. v.  International Airport Authority of India & Ors. [JT 1996 (10)  311], this Court considered the scope of exercise of the  power by  the Government  under Section 17(1) of the Act and  the procedure  to be  followed in that behalf. When the Government  forms an opinion that the lands are urgently needed for a public purpose, notification under Section 4(1) could  be   issued  and   published  in  the  Gazette  while dispensing with  inquiry under  Section 5-A, Giving a gap of one day, the declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act could be published in the Gazette. Notice under Section (1) should be given and on the expiry of 15 days thereafter, possession could be  taken. The  land stands  vested in the State under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

Section  17   (2)  read   with  Section  16  free  from  all encumbrances. Since  inquiry  under  Section  5-A  has  been dispensed with,  as provided  under  the  Act,  80%  of  the compensation was  required to  be given to the claimants. In this case,  instead of  adopting the  said procedure,  after publication of  the notification  under Section  4(1),  they published  the  notification  in  the  local  newspapers  in English as  well as  Hindi and also substance thereof in the locality and thereafter personal notices appear to have been issued to  the owners of the lands. After completion of this process, proceedings  were put  up before the Government for publication of the declaration under Section 6 which came to be made  on April  18, 1996.  The appellant  filed the  writ petition on  July 19, 1996 and consequently possession could not be  taken. After  the writ  petition  was  disposed  of, possession was taken on December 10, 1996. In this backdrop, the need  of urgent possession was dissipated by beaurocrtic inadvertence  and   the  urgency   did  not  cease.  Urgency continues as  long as  the scheme  is not  initiated, action taken and process completed,      It is  true that  the petitioners would have raised, at an enquiry under Section 5-A, objection for the acquisition. One of  the objections  raised in the writ petition was that some of  the khasra numbers notified under Section 4 (1) had been  deleted   from  the  acquisition  proceedings  due  to interference by  some persons and that showed that there was no bona fide in the acquisition proceedings. In that behalf, in the  counter-affidavit filed  in the  High Court,  it was stated  that  the  notification  was  withdrawn  in  respect thereof  since   those  lands  were  required  to  be  taken possession of  under the  Land Ceiling  Act and,  therefore, there was  no need  to acquire those lands. Accordingly, the khasra numbers were deleted by a separate notification.      Another objection raised was that the lands were sought to be  given to  the private  company  and,  therefore,  the procedure prescribed  in Chapter  VII  was  required  to  be adopted. The  acquisition notification  under  Section  4(1) without compliance  of the  provisions under  Chapter VII is bad in  law. In  the counter-affidavit  filed  in  the  High Court, it  was stated  that the acquisition was only for the public purpose, viz., for the planned development as per the plans prepared  and  submitted  to  the  Government  by  the Ghaziabad  Development   Authority   and,   therefore,   the objection raised  was not  tenable. In  view of  this  stand taken by the Government, the direction to conduct an enquiry under Section 5A of the Act is of no material consequence of the facts  of this case. Under those circumstances, we think that there  is no  justification to  quash  the  declaration under Section  6 and to give direction to conduct an inquiry under Section 5A.      Instead, it  is contended by shri Rao that the standing crops and the structures are required to be removed and that the appellants  are prepared  to  cut  and  carry  away  the standing crops  after they  are harvested.  Shri Rao  states that at  least one  month’s time would be required. Shri Rao undertakes to  give the Khasra numbers and the extent of the land in  which there  are standing  crops. The  affidavit be filed within  two days.  To that extent, the respondents are directed not  to destroy  the standing crops. The appellants are directed  to cut  and  harvest  the  standing  crop  and thereafter the  respondents are  at liberty  to carry on the building operations. For removal of the standing structures, the learned  counsel states that four week’s time is enough. Accordingly, the  appellants  are  directed  to  remove  the structures within  four weeks from today. With regard to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

standing crops,  the Land Acquisition Officer is directed to depute one  of his  officers to assess the time required for harvesting the crop and on the basis of the report submitted to the Land Acquisition Officer, he is directed to give them time to  cut  and  harvest  the  crop  and  thereafter,  the respondents are  at liberty to proceed with the carrying out of the  planned development activities. Therefore, we do not find any justification warranting interference.      The appeal is accordingly disposed of, No costs.